Ok, so let's say that true. Who the fuck cares? What does it change in the end? The people are still dead and Hillary did not kill them. You act like there needs to be a murder trial for mis-characterizing. Is that what you want?

We should investigate it again. 11th time is a charm!

So Benghazi is handwaved off as no big deal but trump doesn't volunteer tax returns and woah, the outrage.

Ahahahahahahahaahahahahaha.

No, I don't think she should be tried for murder.

I simply think you should recognize that she is a pathological liar. Her history is replete with huge lies. And almost all of them were for no good reason.

Like when she lied about being under "sniper fire" and CBS news showed the footage of her smiling and taking pictures with a classroom of little girls where she said that she was running for her life. :(

She is very much a puppet to whomever pays her. No different than BUSH. No different than Obama.

And just like Bush and Obama she will lie straight to your face while your loved one is lying in a casket right in front of you.

Haven't you had enough of that kind of shit from lying politicians yet?
You STILL want some more?

I don't.

This brings up an interesting point. Here we have Hillary caught in what is an obvious lie, yet the Republican party is pushing investigations in Benghazi (which is about nothing) and the email crap (which was common practice at the State Department)...

Nah. Let's launch another investigation into nothing.

This is what I don't understand about the attacks on Hillary. She has a rather unimpressive track record as Senator and then the State Department, but instead of focusing on that the Republican party is pushing Benghazi and the emails.

Trump is clearly much better. I mean, it's not like he out right license his name to other companies for a profit.

I think in this case on the evening she made an assumption based on the information she had, as I did, and probably everyone else with a brain, that it was terrorism. That is a natural assumption. She wrote that to her daughter. Even when an explosion or attack is not terrorism, people assume it is. In an Islamic country, I think rightly so, because there is a good chance it is. Then, when Obama came up with that absurd justification, she went with it for two reasons:

1. Loyalty to her boss
2. She didn't want to make a contradictory statement until the facts on the ground were known.

Number 1 is bad, yes, and perhaps she should have gone public before that. But she did go public eventually. Does someone who tells everyone something they suspect might be a falsehood for 9 days get called a pathological liar?

A pathological liar, as I'm sure you know, is someone who "consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless."

Pathological Liar

Under no definition of the word is Hillary Clinton a pathological liar.

Further, I suspect the real motive for waiting was that she wanted to be sure (good), and to be in a group (bad). To publicly break with Obama would have been called stupid by people close to her, in whom she placed trust. To publicly break with him and then be ruled incorrect, well, that would have put her in the dustbin of history.

This is just my opinion, and I'm sure some will see it as uninformed, self-interested, or possibly even naive, but many, many people also hold this opinion.

To the people that denigrate your opinions by saying 4 lives lost vs. the 5000 that the lies that led to the Iraq war cost the USA, I disagree. 4 lives or 5000, they matter. And the ridiculous justification and team mentality that created the scenario that played out is reprehensible.

I personally, though, read the situation as attributable to the administration, and a part of the thoroughly inept strategy of attacking semi-stable Muslim states while claiming that Islam is a religion of peace.